Technology-Supported Personalised Learning - A Rapid Evidence Review - Final

Technology-Supported
Personalised Learning:
A Rapid Evidence Review
Date July 2020
Author Louis Major

Gill A. Francis

#EdTechHub @GlobalEdTechHub edtechhub.org
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.’
EdTech Hub
About this document

Recommended Louis Major and Gill A. Francis (2020).
citation Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A
Rapid Evidence Review. (EdTech Hub Rapid Evidence
Review). DOI: 1 0.5281/zenodo.4556925
Licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
You — dear readers — are free to share (copy and

redistribute the material in any medium or format)
and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the
material) for any purpose, even commercially. You
must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
license, and indicate if changes were made. You may
do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way
that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
Available at https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/A2II5ZV7
Notes EdTech Hub is supported by UK aid and the World

Bank; however, the views expressed in this document
do not necessarily reflect the views of the UK
Government or the World Bank.

Rapid Evidence Reviews

This publication is one part of a series of Rapid Evidence Reviews that has
been produced by EdTech Hub. The purpose of the Rapid Evidence Reviews is
to provide education decision-makers with accessible, evidence-based
summaries of good practice in specific areas of EdTech. They are focused on
topics which are particularly relevant in the context of widespread global
challenges to formal schooling as a result of Covid-19. All the Rapid Evidence
Reviews are available at h
ttps://edtechhub.org/research/.

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 2
EdTech Hub
Contents
Abbreviations and acronyms 4
Summary 5
1. Introduction 8
1.2. Background 8
1.3. Purpose 9
1.4. Application 9
1.5. Research questions 9
2. Methodology 12
2.1. Scoping review 12
2.2. Literature search and eligibility criteria 12
2.3. Limitations 15
2.4. Theme identification 16
3. Findings 18
RQ1. How has technology-supported personalised learning been
implemented in low and middle-income countries? 18
RQ2. What key themes are reported in the literature that may inform a
response to the Covid-19 pandemic? 25
Theme 1: Improving access and adapting to the diverse needs of
learners 25
Theme 2: The role of teachers and appropriate teacher professional
development 29
Theme 3: Pedagogical and motivational affordances 31
Theme 4: Potential challenges and barriers in implementation 33
4. Recommendations 37
5. Annex A: Bibliography 41
6. Annex B: Search terms 46
7. Annex C: Data description spreadsheet 47


EdTech Hub
Abbreviations and acronyms

CAI Computer Assisted Instruction
CTS Cognitive Tutoring Systems
EdTech Educational Technology
ICT Information and Communications Technology
ITS Intelligent Tutoring Systems
LMICs Low- and middle-income countries
RCT Randomised Controlled Trial
RER Rapid Evidence Review
TaRL Teaching at the Right Level


EdTech Hub
Summary
This Rapid Evidence Review (RER) provides an overview of existing research
on the use of technology to support personalised learning in low- and
middle-income countries (LMICs). The RER has been produced in response to
the widespread global shutdown of schools resulting from the outbreak of
Covid-19. It therefore emphasises transferable insights that may be applicable
to educational responses resulting from the limitations caused by Covid-19. In
the current context, lessons learnt from the use of technology-supported
personalised learning — in which technology enables or supports learning
based upon particular characteristics of relevance or importance to learners —
are particularly salient given this has the potential to adapt to learners’ needs
by ‘teaching at the right level’.
This RER provides a summary of the potential benefits of
technology-supported personalised learning as well as identifying possible
limitations and challenges. It intends to inform educational decision makers,
including donors and those in government and NGOs, about the potential to
use technology-supported personalised learning as a response to the current
pandemic. The findings and recommendations are also anticipated to be of
interest to other education stakeholders (e.g. researchers and school leaders).
The RER involved a systematic search for academic and grey literature to
address the overarching question: What is known about personalised
learning through using technology that can be of value in responding
effectively to mass school shutdowns in LMICs? After a rigorous screening
process, 24 studies (in 12 countries) published since 2006 were analysed.
Details on the inclusion criteria, as well as the associated limitations, are
explained in the methodology section. Two specific research questions (RQs)
guided the enquiry:
■ RQ1: How has technology-supported personalised learning been
implemented in LMICs?
■ RQ2: W
hat key themes are reported in the literature that may inform a
response to the Covid-19 pandemic?
While a number of potential research limitations must be taken into account,
on the whole, an encouraging and positive impact on learning outcomes is
reported. Indeed, the RER demonstrates that there is a growing base of strong
evidence on the impact of technology-supported personalised learning to
support school-age learners in LMIC contexts.
Research involving a range of digital technologies and learners of various ages
is reported. Studies mainly target instruction in mathematics and science
EdTech Hub
although there are examples of research involving the development of

non-cognitive skills. Importantly, the RER corroborates previous research
which suggests there is no agreed definition of technology-supported
personalised learning. It notes that ‘personalised learning’ does not necessarily
mean ‘individualised learning’; it can include group-level adaptation and
collaborative learning. Levels of personalisation also appear to fall on a
continuum of being highly responsive to the user to less responsive. A further
interesting finding is that studies report using technology as either a
supplementary (providing additional opportunities for students to practice
instructional content outside of regular classroom instruction), integrative
(using technology during instruction to facilitate teaching and learning), or
substitute (investigating the possibility of using personalised technology in
lieu of teaching) approach.
Structured according to four themes, the findings of the thematic analysis
reveal further insights:
1. Improving access to education and adapting to the diverse needs of
learners: T
his theme examines how technology-supported personalised
learning enables access to quality educational materials, adapts to
learners’ needs by ‘teaching at the right level’, extends learning, and
potentially closes educational gaps for the most marginalised.
2. The role of teachers and appropriate professional development: This
theme examines the central role of teachers and teacher professional
development in enabling technology-supported personalised learning
in addition to addressing potential constraints on teaching and learning.
3. Pedagogical and motivational affordances: T his theme examines the
pedagogical affordances of technology-supported personalised learning
and the impact this can have on learner motivation.
4. Potential challenges and barriers in implementation: T his theme
examines implications with regard to cost and infrastructure, in addition
to potential issues for scalability and sustainability.
The key findings and recommendations from this review are:
Technology-supported personalised learning appears to offer
significant promise to improve learning outcomes, including
potentially ‘out-of-class’ and ‘out-of-school’ learning.
The adaptive nature of technology-supported personalised learning
to ‘teach at the right level’ is key as it enables students to learn at their
own pace and according to their current proficiency.
Technology-supported personalised learning may be most beneficial
in closing educational gaps for lower attaining students, potentially
including those returning to school after an absence.
EdTech Hub
Any introduction of personalised learning technology should not be

interpreted as decreasing the importance of the teacher, but rather
enhancing it.
Implications for cost and infrastructure are unclear, but using existing
hardware solutions is likely to help to reduce costs and increase access.


EdTech Hub
1. Introduction
The Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread and unprecedented global
disruption to education.1 Physical distancing policies to suppress the spread of
Covid-19, which often advise that students and teachers cannot congregate in
schools in the conventional manner, has led to a global expansion of the use
of technology within education.
This RER provides a summary of existing research evidence on the use of
technology to support personalised learning in LMICs. It offers insights and
evidence that can assist in the development and implementation of effective
EdTech interventions across the globe and in situations of disruption to
education and distance learning within the current context.
1.2. Background
Personalising education by adapting learning opportunities and instruction to
individual capabilities and dispositions has been a long-standing objective
among educators (Natriello, 2017). Indeed, everyday practice in schools
globally almost always involves a degree of personalisation as teachers and
students respond to each other’s constantly shifting needs, aims and desires
(Beetham, 2005; Holmes et al., 2018). The idea of personalised learning is
therefore not new. There are, however, variations in how personalisation is
realised in practice.
Research on technology’s role in enabling learning that is better suited to the

characteristics and needs of learners can be traced back several decades (and
even beyond, to groundbreaking work on ‘teaching machines’ by Pressey and
Skinner in the 1920s and 1950s respectively: Holmes et al., 2018). In more recent
years, stimulated by the increasing availability and sophistication of digital
technology, it has been argued that the adaptive and personalisable
affordances of EdTech offer a way of addressing challenges facing education
systems around the world. Potentially these affordances can open up new,
scalable opportunities for greater personalisation that adjust the learning
experience (e.g. based on age, ability, prior knowledge and/or personal
relevance; FitzGerald et al., 2018). They may also enable diverse
representations of content that reflect learners’ own preferences and cultural
reference points, in addition to the ability to automatically capture and
respond to students’ learning patterns with data.
1
See: en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse

EdTech Hub
1.3. Purpose
In the context of LMICs in particular, personalised learning carries significant
promise in improving the state of education (Zualkernan, 2016): for instance,
with regard to identifying and teaching at the ‘right’ (i.e. the learner’s current)
level; reducing the negative effects of high pupil–teacher ratios; increasing
access to education; and improving learning outcomes (Kishore & Shah, 2019).
The Covid-19 global health emergency has accelerated interest in how EdTech
can support personalised learning given the nature of schooling is likely to be
seriously affected in the medium to long term due to the introduction of
physical distancing, school closures and other policies intended to alleviate
the impact of the virus. As a result, there is an urgent need to identify existing
research on technology-supported personalised learning in order to inform an
effective response to the crisis. This is particularly the case for LMICs where
marginalised learners risk falling even further behind.2 This RER, alongside
others, contributes to an emerging evidence base on the use of technology for
education during the Covid-19 pandemic, and organises the most relevant
literature into coherent themes for the consideration of key stakeholders.
1.4. Application
This RER is intended to inform educational decision-makers, including donors
and those in government and NGOs, about the potential to use
technology-supported personalised learning as a response to the current
pandemic. The findings and recommendations are also anticipated to be of
interest to other education stakeholders (e.g. researchers and school leaders).
Given that the circumstances surrounding EdTech interventions differ greatly
across LMIC and other education systems, as with other related reviews (e.g.
Escueta et al., 2017), focusing on research undertaken in LMIC contexts allows
for the integration of findings in a way that can yield meaningful policy
implications.
1.5. Research questions

This study asks the overarching question: W
hat is known about personalised
learning through using technology that can be of value in responding
effectively to mass school shutdowns in LMICs?
Two specific research questions (RQs) guide this enquiry:
2
Estimates suggest the pandemic could lead to approximately US$10 trillion of lost earnings
over the lifetime of every primary and secondary student globally while substantial reductions
in education budgets are also a possibility (Azevedo et al., 2020).

EdTech Hub
RQ1. How has technology-supported personalised learning been

implemented in LMICs?
● Where has research been undertaken?
● Which learners have been involved in the researched interventions?
● What approaches to technology-supported personalised learning are
reported?
● How does technology-supported personalisation relate to learning
outcomes?
RQ2. What key themes are reported in the literature that may inform a
response to the Covid-19 pandemic?
1.5.1. Definition and scope of the study
Like many concepts in education, there is no universal definition of
personalised learning (Holmes et al., 2018). Indeed, Cuban (2018) describes
personalised learning as “like a chameleon; it appears in different forms”.
According to Cuban, these forms can be conceptualised as a ‘continuum’ of
approaches: from teacher-led classrooms to student-centred classrooms, with
‘hybrid’ approaches in between. Such ambiguity has led to the idea of
personalised learning being conflated with individualised learning and
differentiated learning, and sometimes also confused with problem- or
inquiry- or project-based learning (Holmes et al., 2018).
Although definitions of personalised learning vary, broadly stated there is
agreement that it is learner-centred and flexible, and responsive to individual
learners’ needs (Gro, 2017).3 As reflected by the keywords used to search the
literature (encompassing areas such as computer-aided instruction and
intelligent tutoring systems among others; see methodology), an intentionally
broad view of t echnology-supported personalised learning as an ‘umbrella’
term was adopted from the outset. Influenced by FitzGerald and colleagues
(2018), in this RER we conceptualise technology-supported personalised
learning as: the ways in which technology enables or supports learning
based upon particular characteristics of relevance or importance to
learners. This may refer to technology-supported instruction in which: the
pace of learning is adjusted; the instructional approach is optimised for the
needs of each learner (e.g. through learning objectives, content or tools);
learning is driven by learner interests; learners are empowered to choose
what, how and when they learn (Office of Educational Technology, 2017).
3
While beyond the scope of the RER, note that the contentious and widely disputed idea of
‘learning styles’ does not feature in mainstream definitions or approaches to personalised
learning, see:
www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/12/no-evidence-to-back-idea-of-learning-styles

EdTech Hub
1.5.2. Structure of the RER

Following this introduction, the methodological approach is discussed,
including details of the scoping review, the literature search, eligibility criteria
and possible limitations of the methodology. Then, detailed findings are
presented in response to the research questions (including four themes that
emerged from a thematic analysis of identified literature). The report
concludes by providing a summary of key findings and recommendations.


EdTech Hub
2. Methodology
The methodological approach for this RER was informed by the Cochrane
Collaboration Rapid Reviews Methods Group interim guidance on producing
rapid reviews (Garrity et al., 2020) in addition to the framework for undertaking
a scoping review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010).
2.1. Scoping review

A rigorous and systematic form of secondary research, scoping reviews involve
collecting, evaluating and presenting available evidence at a ‘high level’.
Differing from ‘conventional’ systematic reviews in that they are better able to
account for studies with varying intentions and designs, scoping reviews
provide an accessible and summarised overview of existing research to inform
policymakers and other stakeholders (Levac et al., 2010).
Preliminary search terms were developed based on the research questions
and after considering the titles, abstracts and keywords of research which was
known beforehand to be important and relevant (even if not focusing
exclusively on LMICs e.g. the review by FitzGerald et al., 2018). Search terms
were iteratively refined during pilot searches that revealed potentially useful
studies and terms (identified following further analysis of titles, abstracts and
keywords). Using this approach, a final set of 35 search terms was compiled
(Annex B).
2.2. Literature search and eligibility criteria

Automated searches were undertaken during May 2020 using Google Scholar
and the Searchable PUblication Database (SPUD), an extensive searchable
publication database (3+ million records to date) developed by the EdTech
Hub team. Unlike a ‘traditional’ systematic review, which may screen all search
results, the rapid review methodology employed relied on a system of quotas.
As such, only the most relevant results (up to a maximum of the first 20 pages
of results as ranked by Google Scholar) were selected for the first round of
screening. In total, the search strings returned 38,335 results across Google
Scholar and SPUD, with 198 potential candidate studies being identified
through the automated searches.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the search process. The title and abstract
screening, as well as all other subsequent screenings, were conducted
according to the eligibility criteria in Table 1. Where research was identified to
be potentially important despite not strictly meeting the eligibility criteria this
was retained in a complementary collection in case it was useful later. ‘Grey
literature’ (e.g. non-peer reviewed reports) was accepted if relevant to the
EdTech Hub
scope of the RER. All data were shared by the research team through online
documents and folders (e.g. Google Docs, Zotero).
Figure 1: Literature search and screening process.


EdTech Hub
Table 1: Eligibility criteria for literature searches and screening.
Criterion type Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Population Involving elementary Involving learners in

and/or secondary school higher or tertiary
students (ranging from 5 education only
to 19 years old) based in
LMICs
Intervention Falling under the broad Studies focusing on access

‘umbrella’ of to technology with little
technology-supported consideration for how this
personalised learning is personalised to the
needs of learners, or
personalised learning with
no use of technology
Outcomes Reporting effects on Focusing on the

academic performance development and testing
(e.g. measured by grades of software with no learner
or performance on tests) data
or relating to student
needs/preferences (e.g.
motivation to learn)
Study design Describing primary Reviews and

empirical research (i.e., meta-analyses or
acquired by means of providing a ‘lessons
observation, learned’ account without
experimentation or presenting any empirical
survey), both quantitative evidence
and qualitative
Date Published 2006–2020
Language
English-language only
After full-text screening according to the eligibility criteria, 41 relevant studies

were identified. Nonetheless, the reference lists of studies identified during
the automated searches were also examined as a further check to ensure that
EdTech Hub
relevant research was not missed. This ‘backward snowballing’ strategy

resulted in 11 additional studies being identified. Further studies (n=10) were
also identified via expert referral. In total, 62 studies were identified. Hassler
and colleagues’ (2016) adaptation of Gough’s (2007) ‘weight of evidence’
framework was applied to determine those studies of most value. This
involved one member of the research team independently scanning identified
studies before making an evaluation of ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’ for each of the
following criteria:
■ Methodological trustworthiness: the trustworthiness of a study’s results
based on an evaluation of the research approach used.
■ Relevance to the RER: relevance of a study for the specific purposes of
this review, namely how technology-supported personalised learning
can be of value in responding effectively to mass school shutdowns
during Covid-19.
Any study categorised as ‘low’ for trustworthiness (n=19), relevance (n=12), or
both (n=7) was omitted from further analysis (n=38). Thus these studies were
excluded primarily because they reported only minimal empirical findings or
considered technology-supported personalisation in a limited way. This
process resulted in the inclusion of 24 s tudies that met a minimum threshold
of ‘medium trustworthiness’ and ‘medium relevance’.
To address RQ1, a process of data extraction involving the 24 included studies
was undertaken. Initially, this involved extracting data to determine the key
characteristics of studies (i.e. where has research been undertaken? Which
learners have been involved in the researched interventions? What
approaches to technology-supported personalised learning are reported?
How does technology-supported personalisation relate to learning
outcomes?). Having established this overview of the research landscape,
thematic analysis was applied to address RQ2. Whereas data extraction (e.g.,
numbers of participants) is objective and not interpretive, thematic analysis
(or ‘thematic synthesis’; Thomas & Harden, 2008) involves telling the story that
emerges across the findings reported by the included studies. Informed by
established guidelines for narrative syntheses (Ryan, 2013), the research team:
read studies to become familiar with their similarities and differences;
discussed emerging relationships within and between studies; iteratively
revised and refined themes to agree on a final set of themes.
2.3. Limitations
The search only considered English-language research published from 2007
onwards. The choice of keywords used or omitted, publication bias, or the
selection and/or nature of digital libraries searched may have had an impact
EdTech Hub
on the eventual findings. Due to the constraints of the RER timeframe,

activities such as data extraction and quality assessment were necessarily
undertaken primarily by one researcher in a short period of time, and thus
some subjectivity or error may have been introduced. Time constraints also
likely limited how comprehensively the research questions were addressed. It
is also important to note that findings may not be generalisable to the current
Covid-19 context, given the majority of reported research was undertaken in a
school or ‘school-like’ context prior to the pandemic. Concerns have also been
raised about whether learning gains from using personalised technology are
actually attributable to the use of the software (e.g. as opposed to additional
lessons conducted by a teacher; Buchel et al., 2020). A further limitation of
research in this area is that the software is not always fully described; often the
name of the software is omitted, and the full capacity of the software is not
outlined. These factors may limit accurate inferences about the degree to
which the reported software was personalised and how. Finally, the broad
conceptualisation of technology-supported personalised learning employed
resulted in the identification and analysis of a diverse range of heterogeneous
studies of varying rigour which may have implications for the interpretation of
findings.
Actions to mitigate the potential impact of these issues included undertaking
pilot searches, examining the reference lists of included studies for other
relevant work (‘snowballing’ — a process that revealed several commonly
cited studies had already been identified thus demonstrating a degree of
saturation) and maintaining frequent contact between researchers involved.
While the findings of the RER are inherently limited by the quality of evidence
available, the application of the quality/relevance assessment helped to
mitigate the risk of low-quality or irrelevant research significantly impacting
conclusions.
2.4. Theme identification

In the next section we present the findings of the RER. R Q1 contextualises
evidence available by outlining the characteristics of research on
technology-supported personalised learning in LMICs, including how (and
with what impact) this has been implemented. This contextual question
provides the basis for informing the thematic outcomes in RQ2, which
established four themes (and sub-themes):

EdTech Hub
Improving access to education and adapting to the diverse needs of

learners
○ Enabling access to quality educational materials
○ Adapting to learners’ needs by ‘teaching at the right level’
○ Extending learning in new ways
○ Closing educational gaps for the most marginalised
The role of teachers and appropriate professional development
○ The central role of teachers and teacher professional development
○ Addressing constraints on teaching and learning
Pedagogical and motivational affordances
○ Peer interaction, scaffolding & productivity
○ Learner motivation
Potential challenges and barriers in implementation
○ Cost
○ Infrastructure, scalability and sustainability


EdTech Hub
3. Findings
RQ1. How has technology-supported personalised
learning been implemented in low and middle-income
countries?
See Annex C for a summary of information extracted from included studies.
Where has research been undertaken?

Evidence on technology-supported personalised learning is continually
developing across LMICs. Identified research has assessed the
implementation of technology-supported personalised learning in Asia (n=12),
Africa (n=6) and Latin America (n=6).
This RER synthesises a total of 24 studies4 from 12 countries during the period
2007 to 2020: India (n=5), Pakistan (n=1), Nigeria (n= 4), Kenya (n=2), Chile (n=1),
Ecuador (n=1), El Savador (n=1), Cambodia (n=1), and rural China (n=6). Three
additional countries are also reported in two comparative studies: Chile,
Mexico and Ecuador were compared in the same experimental study by Casas
and colleagues (2014); Brazil, Mexico, and Costa Rica were also compared in
the same case study by Ogan and colleagues (2012).
Research addressing technology-supported personalised learning is current
and shows that work is ongoing in the field judging by the publication dates
of retrieved studies: 2007 (n =1), 2008 (n=1), 2010 (n=1), 2011 (n=1), 2012 (n=2), 2013
(n=3), 2014 (n=2), 2015 (n=3), 2016 (n=2), 2017 (n=1), 2018 (n=2), 2019 (n=3), 2020
(n=2).
In addition, a range of research methods have been employed across different
countries. Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) were the most common (n=12)
and were conducted in rural China (n=6), India (n=4), Cambodia (n=1), and El
Salvador (n=1). Quasi-experiments (n=8) were carried out in Nigeria (n=4), India
(n=1), and the Latin American countries of Chile, Mexico, and Ecuador. There
were 4 case studies; 2 from Kenya, 1 from Venezuela, and one study which
compared Brazil, Mexico, and Costa Rica. Note, this classification of ‘case study’
was applied to studies designed to evaluate the development and
implementation of specific personalised learning technologies in LMIC
contexts. The four case studies collected both quantitative data (student
4
Two interesting studies did not meet the formal inclusion criteria for RQ1 given their focus on
the teacher and not students (Stott & Case, 2014; Zualkernan et al., 2013). Their reported
findings are, however, considered in response to RQ2.

EdTech Hub
learning outcomes) and qualitative data (teacher interviews) to assess the

efficacy of personalised software (Andallaza et al., 2012; Mutahi, 2015, 2017;
Ogan, 2012).
Which learners have been involved in the researched

interventions?
Studies involved learners attending primary (n=15) and secondary schools (n=
9). The sample size of the studies overall are considered to be fairly large
(minimum sample = 18, maximum sample = 21,936). For instance, an RCT in
India by Muralidharan and colleagues (2019) sampled 619 participants, a
quasi-experimental study sampled 734 learners across three Latin American
countries (Chile, Ecuador and Mexico; Casas et al., 2014), and a case study by
Andallaza and colleagues (2012) involved 143 learners from Venezuela.
What approaches to technology-supported

personalised learning are reported?
A range of digital technologies are reported to deliver educational content to
students in order to maximise opportunities for learning cognitive (test scores
or learning outcomes) or non-cognitive skills (social skills, computer
proficiency).5 These have mostly targeted instruction in single subjects:
mathematics (n=15), science (n=3), English (n=1), multiple subjects (n=4), and
one study addressing social skills.
The introduction to this RER pointed out how there is no agreed definition of
technology-supported personalised learning. This is reflected in the varied
terminology used by included studies. Common terminologies used to
describe research related to ‘technology-supported personalised learning’
include:
● Computer-assisted learning e.g. Bai et al. (2018), Banerjee et al. (2007)
● Computer-aided Learning e.g. Muralidharan et al. (2019)
● Computer-aided Instruction (CAI) e.g. Carrillo et al. (2011); Ito et al. (2019)
● Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) e.g. Andallaza et al. (2012)
● Cognitive Tutoring Systems (CTS) e.g. Ogan et al. (2012)
5
Refer to Annex C (Data Description Spreadsheet) which includes a list of the personalised
technology used in each study. In this context, ‘cognitive skills’ generally refer to assessment
of learning outcomes using tests, and non-cognitive skills include social skills (e.g. Ige, 2019),
computer proficiency skills (e.g. Mo et al., 2013), and affective skills (e.g. Andallaza et al., 2012).
An interesting observation is the emphasis on assessing cognitive outcomes although
learning is of course inextricably linked to non-cognitive skills like students’ needs,
preferences, socio-emotional development, etc.

EdTech Hub
The studies which reported using either computer-assisted learning (n=9),

computer-aided learning (n=3), or CAI (n=5) appear to use slightly different
terms to describe a similar goal. While not all studies provide operational
definitions for these terms, two common definitions were observed.
Computer-assisted learning is characterised as a type of computer-aided
learning which uses computerised instruction, drills and exercises,
simulations, and instructional games (Gambari et al., 2016; Lai et al., 2013, 2015),
or involves the use of a computer program that offers remedial learning
materials in the form of interesting interfaces and games with the aim of
improving educational outcomes and interest in learning (Bai et al., 2018; Mo
et al., 2013).
In contrast, the studies which reported using ITS (n=3) and CTS (n=4) placed
greater emphasis on the affordances the technology provided to the learner.
These described how: responses to learner inputs (monitoring and feedback)
were provided, content was adjusted to match the level of the learner, and a
high volume of user data can be captured as feedback to the learner and
teacher. Specifically, ITS are defined as “computer applications that are
capable of providing individualised instruction to learners through the use of
artificial intelligence, thereby supporting the learner and facilitating the
learning process” (Andallaza et al., 2012, p.1). CTS are defined as a type of ITS
that is capable of assessing skill mastery as a student solves problems, and
provides context-sensitive hints, error feedback, and adaptive problem
selection (Ogan et al., 2012). These adaptive softwares are specifically designed
to facilitate self-paced learning through tailoring content to levels of learning
(which can free teachers to act as classroom facilitators rather than teaching
directly; Ogan et al., 2012).
There appears to be a link between the l evel of personalisation afforded by
the technology and the reported approach to personalised learning. Three
levels of personalisation afforded by educational technology were
distinguished. Those with ‘fewer personalisation affordances’ (n=8 studies),
‘medium personalisation affordances' (n=6 studies), and ‘greater
personalisation affordances’ (n=10 studies). The classifications ‘fewer
personalisation affordances’ and ‘ medium personalisation affordances’ can
broadly be applied to studies reporting personalised learning using
approaches like computer-assisted learning, computer-aided learning and
CAI. By contrast, studies investigating technology-supported personalised
learning using ITS, CTS, or other highly personalised technological software
can be described as featuring ‘greater personalisation affordances’.
Software featuring fewer personalisation affordances may not use highly
sophisticated intelligent software. Generally embedded in their design,
EdTech Hub
however, is the explicit alignment of the software content to the local

country’s national curriculum, in addition to some level of personalisation that
provides feedback to the learner to support monitoring of learning and
progress. Technologies with m edium personalisation affordances go beyond
aligning the content of the personalised software to the curriculum but also
try to coincide use of the software to ongoing class instruction. They also
target the level of learner by presenting concepts according to task difficulty
and facilitating interactive user feedback. Technologies involving g reater
personalisation affordances were: highly data driven; had the potential for
6
interaction (or responsive engagement) between the technology and the

learner; involved educational content that was contextualised to meet the
local context of the research.
In the present RER, the classifications of ‘fewer-’, ‘medium-’ and ‘greater-’
personalisation affordances are intended to indicate the differences in the
extent to which personalisation is affected. Hence, levels of personalisation
may fall on a continuum of being highly responsive to the user (e.g.,
scaffolding learning and providing hints to difficult questions), to less
responsive (e.g., by providing activities like exercises for drill and practice,
viewing videos linked to questions, and limited feedback such as indicating
that user responses are correct or incorrect).
A further interesting finding is that studies implementing
technology-supported approaches to personalised learning used the
technology as either a supplementary ( n=14), integrative (n=3) or s ubstitute
approach (n=2). Further, studies have compared these approaches:
supplementary/integrative (n=1), supplementary/substitution (n=1) in addition
to attending to s oftware evaluation (albeit involving an analysis of learning
outcome data, n=3).
Supplementary approaches provide additional opportunities for students to
practice instructional content outside of regular classroom instruction. Such
studies typically use additional learning opportunities to provide remedial
support through independent practice using a learning software (e.g.
Banerjee et al., 2007; Buchel et al., 2020). These have been trialled with
software featuring fewer-, medium- and greater-personalisation affordances
with content designed to target the different levels of the learner. Variations
exist, however, in the extent and quality of engagement and feedback
between the learner and the software. Supplementary approaches to
personalisation thus complement the quality of instruction available to
6
Examples include data drawn from interfaces and sensors that capture fine-grained user
interactions (Mutahi et al., 2015), or that provide visual feedback on student progress using
logs generated during a session (the Aplusix ITS in Andallaza et al., 2012)

EdTech Hub
students. Students can therefore use such technology independently or with

teacher guidance (Buchel et al., 2020).
Integrative approaches use the technology during instruction to facilitate
teaching and learning. In this approach, the teacher and technology co-exist,
where it is the teacher’s role to facilitate and reinforce the learning process.
They are designed not as supplementary, standalone systems but take into
account the teacher, student and classroom interactions (Mutahi, 2015). For
instance, the teacher uses technology to complement their lesson
instructions by including time for students to use technology (Gambari,
2016b). During this time the teacher may use the feedback data generated to
adjust teaching and re-teach concepts.
Substitute approaches i nvestigate the possibility of using personalised
technology in lieu of teaching i.e. where instruction is delivered solely through
technology. There is little evidence of technology-supported personalised
learning successfully replacing certified teachers or regular teaching. Gambari
and colleagues (2015) compared an individualised computer-assisted
instructional program to two other non-computer assisted instructional
programs. The researchers found no significant differences in learning
outcomes among the three groups, implying that neither approach had an
advantage.
Two studies designed interventions that compared these approaches with
each other (Linden, 2008; Gambari et al., 2016a).7
In Table 2, an overview of the link between f ewer-, m
edium- and
greater-personalisation affordances and the ways in which
technology-supported personalised learning has been implemented is
outlined. It is worth recalling that the studies using software with greater
personalisation affordances (ITS and CTS) have been the least researched.
Further work is required to make affirmative conclusions about the use of any
of these approaches.
7
Linden (2008) evaluated a computer-assisted learning programme designed to reinforce
Indian students' understanding of material presented in class and found this was a poor
substitute for the teacher-delivered curriculum and was no better than a complement
(supplement) programme delivered using an out of school model. Gambari and colleagues
(2016a) study in Nigeria found that an integrative approach – integrating an interactive
computer program into chemistry instruction – was no more effective than using
conventional teaching methods or a substitute approach (using a computer tutorial
instructional package).

EdTech Hub
Table 2. Summarising reported technology-supported personalised learning

approaches by the nature of their implementation.
Fewer Medium Greater

personalisation personalisation personalisation
affordances affordances affordances
(n=8) (n=6) (n=10)
Supplementary 3 6 5
(n=14)
Substitute (n=2) 2 0 0
Integrative (n=3) 1 0 2
Supplementary/ 1 0 0
integrative
(n=1)
Supplementary/ 1 0 0
substitution
(n=1)
Software 0 0 3
evaluation8
(n=3)
How does technology-supported personalisation

relate to learning outcomes?
Studies report diverse but broadly positive relationships between
technology-supported personalised technology and learning outcomes (Table
3).9 It is striking how a relatively limited amount of qualitative or mixed
methods research has been undertaken (although as discussed in the
Limitations section, this lack of representation may be due to studies being
inadvertently filtered out or missed).
Table 3. Summarising reported impact on students’ learning (by research method)
Studies Positive Mixed Negative
8
These studies also attended to an analysis of learning outcomes (n=2).
9
The learning outcomes are summarised to provide a broad overview. Ideally, a meta-analysis
that compares effect sizes is a more appropriate way of determining the common effect
across different studies and will be the next step towards extending this RER.

EdTech Hub
outcomes outcomes10 outcomes
RCTs 12 10 2 0
Quasi-experiments 8 4 0 4
Case study11 4 3 0 1
Total 24 17 2 5

Of the studies featuring f ewer personalisation affordances (Table 2, n=8), five

report that the intervention had a negative impact on learning and three
report a positive impact. These three studies (all ‘supplementary’ approaches)
were designed to provide remedial instruction that was tightly aligned to the
curriculum, teacher instruction and learner feedback.
Similarly, the studies classified as featuring m
edium personalisation
affordances (n=6) all used a supplementary approach that had a positive
impact on learning. Moreover, it appears that the effort to contextualise the
contents of the software so that it aligns with the national curriculum,
classroom lessons or the level of the learner can have profound impact
regardless of technology sophistication.
In terms of the impact on learning for studies classified as featuring greater
personalisation affordances (n=10): five used a supplementary approach, all of
which had positive impacts on students’ learning; two used an integrative
approach that also had positive impacts on students learning; and three were
software evaluations that reported varying results in terms of impact on
learning outcomes.
10
The studies categorised as mixed outcomes generally found a positive effect on student
learning from using the software. However, the effects were small over and above traditional
pencil and paper learning (Ma et al., 2020) and the personalised approach was a poor
substitute for the teacher-delivered curriculum in comparison to a complementary program
which showed statistically significant gains for the weakest and oldest students in the class
(Linden, 2008).
11
The case studies were software evaluation studies which trialled newly developed
personalised learning software with teachers and/or students to garner feedback on the
useability of the tool and users’ perceptions. Andallaza and colleagues (2012) collected
quantitative data by observing students’ affective states while using the software to
determine if the software facilitated the development of affective skills. Mutahi and colleagues
(2015, 2017) analysed qualitative data via teacher interviews to get feedback on the usability of
the software and quantitative software usage data. Ogan and colleagues (2012) presents a
qualitative case study featuring teacher interviews.
EdTech Hub
RQ2. What key themes are reported in the literature

that may inform a response to the Covid-19 pandemic?
Building on RQ1, four interconnected themes identified in the literature are
now considered. As outlined in RQ1, technology-supported personalised
learning has been implemented in three main ways (as a supplementary,
integrative or substitute approach). The reported synthesis is intentionally —
and necessarily (given the constraints of the RER timeframe and the broad
definition of technology-supported personalised learning) — ‘high level’ as it
does not differentiate between the distinct ways in which technology has
been used to support personalised learning. Further, the impact of cultural
and social differences between different contexts, and the fact that the
majority of research relates to mathematics and science education, must be
considered when interpreting results from the reviewed studies. Despite
these challenges, themes identified are intended to provide an accessible
summary of existing evidence so that educators, policymakers and donors
might make informed decisions about the potential role of
technology-supported personalised learning as a response to the Covid-19
pandemic.12
Theme 1: Improving access and adapting to the

diverse needs of learners
Enabling access to quality educational materials
Technology-supported personalised learning appears to offer an accessible
means by which students can access instructional materials capable of
enhancing learning. Thus, such technology can address severe teacher
shortages (Ito et al., 2019) and the need for out-of-school learning (e.g. to
support homework; Kumar & Mehra, 2018). Established technology-supported
personalised learning programs such as Mindspark offer a means to deliver
educational content in a variety of settings (in schools, in after-school centres,
or through self-guided study). Such solutions are being deployed across
increasingly diverse platforms (including computers, tablets and
smartphones; Muralidharan et al., 2019), and can be used offline as well as
online (Bai et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2020).
12
Note, findings from two additional studies, that focus primarily on the role of the teacher,
have also been incorporated into the thematic analysis given they provide insights
complementing reported themes (Stott & Case, 2014; Zualkernan et al., 2013). Also included are
findings reported in two other highly relevant studies undertaken in Latin America, originally
published in Spanish, which were identified following the automated search (Perara & Aboal,
2017a, 2017b).

EdTech Hub
In this context, ‘quality educational materials’ may be evaluated on two levels:

(1) technological content carefully developed to be aligned with the
curriculum and instruction at a level of instructional units (e.g. Carillo, 2011; Ito
et al., 2019), and (2) lessons being delivered to students (e.g. Mo et al., 2014). As
discussed in RQ1, so far much of the evidence points to positive gains when
technology-supported personalised learning supplements classroom
instruction (Lai et al., 2013; Mo et al., 2014). See Theme 4 for further discussion
on potential barriers to equitable EdTech access that may be particularly
relevant given the Covid-19 context.
Adapting to learners’ needs by ‘teaching at the right level’
Somewhat unsurprisingly, the adaptive nature of technology-supported
personalised learning is a key emergent theme. For instance, the way this can
enable students to learn at their own pace and according to their current
proficiency (Ito et al., 2019), including collaboratively (Ogan et al., 2012).
Allowing students to work at their own speed using personalised software
pitched at their level can avoid potential negative status effects of them being
labelled as being in a ‘weaker’ track, while the dynamic updating of content
mitigates the risk of premature permanent tracking of ‘late bloomers’
(Muralidharan et al., 2019). Even more important is ensuring that the
educational content is pitched at the learner’s level of proficiency. Here, the
technology is used to differentiate instruction in a way that meets the goal of
remediation (Banerjee et al., 2007).
While there are several mechanisms by which computer-aided learning can
improve teaching and learning, a particularly attractive feature is its ability to
deliver individually customised content for Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL)
for all students, regardless of the extent of heterogeneity in learning levels
within a classroom (Muralidharan et al., 2019). This can help to directly address
one of the main reasons for the general inability to meet desired learning
outcomes in LMICs: the inability to meet the heterogeneous learning needs of
a large student population with constrained educational resources (Kumar &
Mehra, 2018).
Consider the following example reporting the use of a mathematics
intervention in urban India. Addressed to all children but adapted to each
child’s current level of achievement, a technology-supported personalised
learning initiative allowed each learner to be individually and appropriately
stimulated (Banerjee et al., 2007). Specifically designed to address constraints
on effective pedagogy in LMICs, such software may feature the use of an
extensive item-level database of test questions and student responses to
benchmark the initial learning level of every student; the material being
delivered can then be dynamically personalised to match the level and rate of
EdTech Hub
progress made by each individual student (Muralidharan et al., 2019). In

addition to allowing for variation in academic content presented, other
potential benefits include allowing different entry points and differentiated
instruction without the need to reorganise peers in the classroom (including
preserving the age-cohort-based social grouping of students; Muralidharan et
al., 2019).
Extending learning in new ways
In addition to this capacity to support TaRL, technology-supported
personalised learning appears to offer the potential to promote learning in
other ways beyond those previously possible. A randomised controlled trial in
Salvadoran primary schools, for instance, reveals not only how
computer-assisted personalised learning produces substantial learning gains,
but may actually outperform traditional modes of instruction (Buchel et al.,
2020). Such a relative advantage seems to be driven by a mismatch between
teacher preparation and the complexity of the concepts they have to teach:
under traditional teaching models, it seems questionable that children are
able to master what their teachers fail to understand. However,
technology-supported personalised learning may allow learners to make
progress beyond their teachers' content knowledge. Such approaches may
thus help to teach or remediate critical deficiencies in both students’ and
teachers’ understandings (Ogan et al., 2012). Researchers including Gambari
and colleagues (2016a) have explored using personalised technology as an
integrative or blended model where it is used as part of instruction in
mathematics and science to address challenges such as a lack of instructional
materials and to facilitate the teaching of constructs that are abstract and
difficult to understand. While the researchers did not find using
computer-simulated instruction during instruction to be more effective than
traditional instruction, the study points to a need for research to detangle the
contribution of delivering pedagogical content through the teacher versus
through the technology.
Closing educational gaps for the most marginalised
Consistent with the promise of technology-supported personalised learning
to customise instruction for each student, integrating a novel approach to
implementing grade level appropriate material into existing teaching practice
can substantially increase learning for students of all baseline learning levels
(Muralidharan et al., 2019). Of particular significance during the current
context of mass school shutdowns, given many learners will likely require
additional support to get to the ‘right level’ upon returning to school, is a
growing collection of evidence that indicates how technology-supported
personalised learning may help most in closing educational gaps for
EdTech Hub
marginalised learners. This is evident in examples of studies done in India,

rural China and Latin American countries that deliberately target
disadvantaged students from low-income backgrounds or aim to address
issues relating to quality education (e.g. Carillo et al., 2011; Mo et al., 2013).
Many parents of the most marginalised learners have neither the skills nor the
money to provide remedial tutoring, while many teachers often do not have
time to give students the individual attention they need. The ability of
personalised technology to teach all students equally effectively, for instance
as a complementary input to using existing computer resources, has been
reported as offering the potential to narrow the urban-rural achievement gap
and help disadvantaged populations (Bai et al., 2018). Indeed, students from
disadvantaged family backgrounds (Lai et al., 2013), or who have less educated
parents (Lai et al., 2015), may benefit more from such programmes. In settings
where students are more likely to be substantially behind grade level, or
where there is substantial heterogeneity, the effects of adaptive technology
might be larger because technology can personalise education (Ma et al.,
2020). As a result, the relative impact of learning gains may be much greater
for lower-attaining students (Muralidharan et al., 2019), although arguably
such learners may be the most likely to have limited access to required
technology.
Positive effects have also been observed with regard to gender, which is
indicative of the promising use of computer simulation and tutorial
instructional strategies to bridge the academic gaps that might exist between
male and female secondary science students (Gambari et al., 2015). Note,
however, that other research has reported no similar positive effect for girls,
nor indeed for high-performing students irrespective of their gender (Ma et al.,
2020). This is something also reported by Kumar and Mehra (2018), who, while
finding students with low and medium mathematics attainment benefited
significantly from the personalised homework, higher-attaining students did
not to the same degree. This might have been because the algorithm offered
too many easy questions that could be suboptimal for the learning needs of
some high ability students. Other potential explanations include
high-attaining students already knowing how to learn effectively (and hence
are always more likely to do well), as well as the ‘gap’ being much smaller in
terms of how much they can improve.

EdTech Hub
Theme 2: The role of teachers and appropriate

teacher professional development
The central role of teachers and teacher professional development
While the exact ways in which technology-supported personalised learning is
implemented vary, evidence on the role of the teachers in such
implementation is overwhelmingly consistent: any introduction of
personalised learning technology should not be interpreted as a loss of the
importance of the teacher in teaching. For instance, Buchel and colleagues
(2020) found that while students benefited from additional mathematics
instruction, the learning gains were greater when this instruction was
delivered using personalised learning technology with an experienced teacher
over a supervisor who does not offer pedagogical support. It is possible that
the availability of the teacher to provide immediate feedback is
complemented by the potential of the technology to deliver individualised
materials (at the pace and level of the learner) which has benefits for the
progress of the whole class.
Overall, the majority of the research on technology-supported personalised
learning in LMICs trials supplementary approaches where students used the
personalised technology outside of class instruction and without input from
the teacher (see RQ1). Importantly, it appears studies that report success
typically rely on the teacher or a knowledgeable expert to ensure the quality
of the software’s instructional content and the alignment between class
teaching and further practice for students. The few studies that have
compared substitute and complementary approaches to using personalised
technology have consistently reported no advantages when the technology
replaces the teacher (Gambari et al., 2016a, 2016b; Linden, 2008).
Thus, reported research should not be interpreted as supporting a reduced
emphasis of the role of teachers in education. Rather, since the delivery of
education involves tasks that vary for individual students and situations, and
requires complex contextually aware communication, technology should be
viewed as a complement (rather than substitute) to teachers (Muralidharan et
al., 2019). This is, of course, a common message emerging from EdTech
research across recent decades and it is no less applicable here. Where a
technology-supported personalised learning system is reported to have been
used, learners have themselves recognised the role of the teacher as a helpful
guide in the learning process (87% of 388 students; Casas et al., 2014).
Using technology in this way can include deploying it to perform routine tasks
to free up teachers to spend more time on aspects of education where they
have comparative advantages over technology (e.g. such as supporting group
EdTech Hub
learning strategies that can help develop social and other non-cognitive skills;
Perara & Aboal, 2017a). Personalised approaches using cognitive tutoring
systems that provide self-contained lessons, can help to mitigate common
barriers to using educational software (such as the preparation time teachers
require; Ogan et al., 2012). In cases where teachers cannot be in class, such
technology could potentially assist substitute teachers or aides and
supplement existing lessons, thereby facilitating a dynamic interaction
between the teacher, system and learner by tracking student engagement
and learning (Mutahi et al., 2015). How personalised technology can provide
analytics or support data-analysis-intensive tasks (Muralidharan et al., 2019) is
also likely to be an important focus of future research, particularly in those
contexts where it is not possible for teachers to be physically present with
students. As also highlighted in Theme 1, student progress may be hampered
by limited teacher knowledge; hence, investing in the skills of teachers
through offering professional development programmes is important (Buchel
et al., 2020; Mo et al., 2014). When integrating technology-supported
personalised learning approaches, teachers should be trained on the effective
pedagogical use of the technology (through seminars, workshops and
conferences; Gambari et al., 2016a).
Additionally, there appears to be some limited evidence indicating the
effectiveness of electronic tutoring as a tool for promoting conceptual change
among in-service teachers themselves. Quantitative data collected from 1,049
South African science teachers who attended 54 in-service teacher workshops
suggest that individual use of the software can be effective in developing new
knowledge, especially for those who already have relatively high levels of prior
knowledge (Stott & Case, 2014).
Addressing constraints on teaching and learning
Providing they are operational and available, reported personalised
technological interventions appear to be well received by teachers (who
broadly agree that they offer efficient and effective learning accompaniments;
e.g. Mutahi et al., 2017). Teachers’ intention to use such systems, however, is
strongly dependent on how well the system is aligned with their teaching
practices, students’ learning habits, and whether the content on the platform
is made available in a language that can be understood by students
(Zualkerman et al., 2013). Teachers must also reconcile their usual
one-size-fits-all delivery model, in line with the order in which their curriculum
expects them to teach concepts, with the notion of different pathways for
different students.
In addition to enabling ‘teaching at the right level’ (see Theme 1), personalised
learning software may help in addressing other constraints on teaching and
EdTech Hub
learning. For instance, in the case of the Mindspark software, the high quality
of content, combined with effective delivery and interface, can help
circumvent constraints of teacher human capital and motivation. Algorithms
for analysing patterns of student errors and providing differentiated feedback,
and follow-up content that is administered in real time, also enable more
relevant and more frequent feedback (Muralidharan et al., 2019). As a result,
promoting the targeted use of personalised learning technology may be an
attractive option for governments and NGOs operating in settings with low
teacher quality. This is because learning software can empower teachers to
improve the quality of their teaching, particularly when they themselves
struggle with particular concepts they have to teach (Buchel et al., 2020).
Other ways in which technology-supported personalised learning may
support teaching include outside of school uses (e.g. through
easy-to-implement personalised homework; Kumar & Mehra, 2018), and by
providing extensive information on student performance to better guide
teacher effort in the classroom while not contributing to increasing teacher
workload (Muralidharan et al., 2019).
Theme 3: Pedagogical and motivational affordances

There is a close link between the affordances provided by technology and the
manner in which it is implemented. Complementing the previous discussion
in Themes 1 and 2, in this subsection other potential affordances of
technology-supported personalised learning are considered.
Peer interaction, feedback and scaffolding
While the idea of personalised learning may on the surface appear to relate to
a more ‘solitary’ understanding of education, some evidence points to the
potential benefits of personalised learning for collaborative working. Peer
interaction can be promoted directly through personalised technologies or
enabled offline as students use the technology to acquire core knowledge and
skills that allows them to contribute to group-based work taking place outside
of the technology itself.
For instance, in Ogan and colleagues’ (2012) study on the use of mathematics
tutoring software in middle schools in Latin America, students collaborated
extensively while using a technology primarily designed for individual use; the
pace of work was often interdependent, and work often occurred at
classmates’ computers in addition to their own. Further, the authors observed
that the greater the (group) use in the class, the greater the advantage that
the students obtained. Such findings have led to calls for research to explore
how personalised technology may be used within classrooms to promote
conceptual change through scaffolding and peer tutoring (Araya & Van der
EdTech Hub
Molen, 2013), and active learner participation and classroom dialogue (Stott &
Case, 2014). The way that technology-supported personalised learning can
enable comparison and competition between peers has also been suggested
as a contributing factor to positive learning gains (Brunskill et al., 2010; Bai et
al., 2018). Consideration has also been given to how students’ social skills
might be fostered (Ige, 2019).
While the features of technology-supported learning initiatives differ
according to many factors, including the intended audience and deployment
location, a case study on how interactive adaptive tutor software (Wayang
Outpost) has been used to support mathematics learners (Grades 5-12) in
Pakistan is useful in demonstrating how such technology can be designed to
support pedagogy by:
● Modelling (introduces the topic via worked examples, making steps
explicit, and working through a problem aloud);
● Providing practice with coaching (offering multimedia feedback and
hints to sculpt performance to match/resemble that of an expert's);
● Scaffolding (putting into place strategies and methods to support
student learning);
● Providing affective support (via characters that reflect about emotions,
encourage students to persevere and demystify misconceptions about
mathematics problem solving);
● Encouraging reflection (self-referenced progress charts allow students
to look back and analyse their performance) at key moments of loss or
boredom (Zualkerman et al., 2013).
Such technology features have been reported to improve students’ learning
efficiency and productivity (Ito et al., 2019) and enable teachers to spend more
time on supporting group-based learning strategies that may help build social
and other non-cognitive skills (Muralidharan et al., 2019).
Impact on learner motivation
Technology-supported personalised learning appears to be well received by
most learners and has a broadly motivational impact as well as improving
subject learning. For example, after the implementation of a cognitive
tutoring strategy for mathematics learners in Latin America, a high
percentage (67%) of students in the intervention group (n=388) increased
their motivation toward learning maths, felt more certain about their abilities
to solve maths problems (68%), and viewed the technology as a useful tool
that substantially helped their learning process (81%; Casas et al., 2014). Other
evidence corroborates this conclusion. This includes a study showing that
secondary school students in Nigeria performed better on chemistry

EdTech Hub
achievement and motivation tests when compared to those taught without

computer simulations (Gambari et al., 2016a). Positive effects on student
interest in mathematics have also been found (whereas there was no effect on
maths interest from extra time learning maths; Ma et al., 2020). Indeed, this
‘interest-oriented stimulation’ is regarded by some researchers as one of the
main sources of improvement among students (Bai et al., 2018), although this
may in part be due to a novelty effect.
A more general positive impact on student motivation as a result of
technology-supported personalised learning is also reported. This includes the
adaptive and/or gamified capabilities of technology increasing the probability
that students will remain engaged and challenged (Brunskill et al., 2010; Ma et
al., 2020), in a way that can significantly increase their interest in learning (Lai
et al., 2015) and aspirations for their future education level (Bai et al., 2018; Ito
et al., 2019). Trials of emotionally intelligent personalised mathematics
software that provides encouragement and support while students learn
algebra indicate the creative potential of technology-supported personalised
learning to simulate interactions similar to that provided by the teacher
(Andallaza et al., 2012). Other research also reveals a strong positive correlation
between performance and engagement (Mutahi et al., 2017). Questions
remain, however, about whether such motivational benefits manifest across
different age and subject groups. For instance, Ito and colleagues (2019)
reported only a very slight change in motivation and self-esteem in younger
learners following the introduction of a computer-aided instruction
programme. Other issues must also be considered, including the problem of
questions that do not challenge those at higher attainment levels (Kumar &
Mehra, 2018) or how to prevent learners from ‘gaming’ a system to get better
results (Mutahi et al., 2017).
Theme 4: Potential challenges and barriers in

implementation
Cost
As outlined above, due to the constraints of the RER process and scope, we do
not differentiate between the distinct ways in which technology has been
used to support personalised learning (i.e. whether this is implemented as a
supplementary, integrative or substitute approach; see RQ1). Such
heterogeneity presents a challenge to drawing firm conclusions about the
costs associated with technology-supported personalised learning initiatives.
Our findings in this regard are, therefore, tentative and further research is
recommended to unpack such factors. Nonetheless, this initial exploration
indicates that implementing technology-supported personalised learning
EdTech Hub
need not be prohibitively expensive, even if it may be somewhat more

expensive than non-technology based solutions.
Banerjee and colleagues (2007) reported the cost of a non-technology based
tutor-led programme for developing primary school literacy and numeracy
skills at US$2.25 per student per year, with technology-supported
programmes costing $15.18 per student per year (including the cost of
computers and assuming a five-year depreciation cycle). In terms of cost for a
given improvement in test scores, therefore, scaling up the non-technology
based programme would thus be much more cost effective (if it brings about
a similar increase in test scores at a much lower cost). Other research has
concluded that the implementation of one personalised-learning technology
can be calculated as broadly on par with other interventions to improve
student performance in LMICs (e.g. a girls scholarship program, cash
incentives for teachers and new textbooks), though less cost-effective than
remedial education and teacher training programmes (Linden, 2008). In an
experiment by Ma and colleagues (2020), however, the researchers found that
the marginal costs of paper workbooks are unsurprisingly lower than those
associated with technology and lead to roughly similar effects on academic
performance. Importantly they also do not require the high fixed costs and
maintenance costs of computers, internet connections, and extra space to
securely house such equipment.
Such findings have prompted interest in how lower cost (and less
resource-intensive) technology-supported personalised learning initiatives
may be implemented in LMIC contexts — for instance, an adaptive multi-user
software that splits screen resources and pushes different questions to
individual input devices (Brunskill et al., 2010). Beyond an upfront investment,
such software can be provided at low cost or even open access, which
improves its scalability potential. Another approach includes
computer-generated personalised homework, which is reported to be both
somewhat effective (showing a 4.16% improvement in exam scores in a study
involving 240 students) and inexpensive as associated costs can be spread
over a large number of students when applied on a large scale (e.g. less than
$1.00 per student; Kumar & Mehra, 2018).
In summary, additional work is needed to explore the cost implications
associated with technology-supported personalised learning initiatives. This is
a complex matter that boils down to more than the cost of software
development or purchasing of a device. Models of technology-supported
personalised learning that charge fees may limit the ability of low-income
students to access them (Muralidharan et al., 2019). Donated (up-to-date)
hardware (Banerjee et al., 2007), ‘online’ programmes (e.g. Open Educational
EdTech Hub
Resources or Massive Open Online Course) and government-led initiatives

may all play a role in enabling greater access to personalised and adaptive
learning technology (Muralidharan et al., 2019).
Infrastructure, scalability and sustainability
In a similar manner, further research is needed to determine other factors
involved in the broader EdTech ecosystem (including in relation to the
potential to scale and sustain technology-supported personalised learning
initiatives).
Significant resource constraints and challenges (e.g. intermittent network
connectivity, lack of battery power, etc) have been reported in the deployment
of technology-supported personalised learning programmes, and this should
be a consideration when developing systems for resource-constrained regions
or countries (Mutahi et al., 2017). Weak technology infrastructure, poor
equipment maintenance, poorly prepared technical support personnel, high
frequency of electric supply problems, and unstable connections to the
internet have all been reported to present problems; in addition, such
technical difficulties may be more pronounced in students’ homes (Araya &
Van der Molen, 2013). ‘Start-up’ costs associated with the development and
maintenance of adaptive software have also been flagged as a potential
concern, indicating how more research is needed on the trade-offs between
adaptive versus non-adaptive software (Ma et al., 2020). In addition to
technological deployment (technical issues such as lack of local servers and
networks because of poor internet bandwidth and lack of technical assistance
for the setup of computer labs), the potential impact of changing political
priorities and teachers’ attitudes (owing to lack of confidence and engrained
practices, particularly for more established teachers) for scalability and
sustainability must also be considered (Casas et al., 2014).
While ‘traditional’ software-based technology-supported personalised
learning programmes may sometimes be particularly difficult and costly to
implement (compared to other EdTech uses that potentially do not require as
high a learner-to-device ratio), solutions that bypass some of these problems
have been proposed (e.g. ‘online’ computer-assisted learning; Bai et al., 2018).
Such an approach is reported to eliminate the need to manually install and
maintain software in addition to enabling the ability to log in ‘anywhere and
anytime’. Additional features, such as the integration of social functions (Bai et
al., 2018), may open up new avenues for learning. Other personalised
approaches, such as computer-generated personalised homework (Kumar &
Mehra 2018), have also been reported as relatively easy to implement with
minimal need for external monitoring. Moreover, one thing is clear from the
literature: access to technology alone is insufficient (Ito et al., 2019).
EdTech Hub


EdTech Hub
4. Recommendations
Personalised learning in LMICs, as both a concept and a practice, remains in
its infancy. In general, there is still much to learn about the potential benefits
of personalised learning, including how learning environments that can adapt
to the unique needs and strengths of students and allow them to have
greater ownership of their learning may enable more meaningful and
effective education (Gro, 2017). Nonetheless, this RER demonstrates that there
is a growing base of evidence on the impact of technology-supported
personalised learning to support school-age learners in LMIC contexts.
Following a systematic search of the literature since 2006, 24 studies in 12
countries were identified. On the whole, an encouraging and positive impact
on learning outcomes is reported. As previously discussed, the limitations of
the RER, heterogeneity of included studies, and fact that the majority of
included research reports on the use of technology-supported personalised
learning approaches in a school (or school-like) context must be considered
when drawing conclusions. Despite these challenges, recommendations can
be made to inform educational decision makers, including donors and those
in government and NGOs, about the potential to use technology-supported
personalised learning as a response to the current pandemic in LMICs:
■ Technology-supported personalised learning appears to offer
significant promise to improve learning outcomes, including
potentially ‘out-of-class’ and ‘out-of-school’ learning. This has been
successful in providing remedial instruction in mathematics and
science. Further research is needed, however, to support these claims
and it is important to note that most existing research conducted
‘out-of-school’ has been in classroom-type settings with support from
facilitators. It is also unclear how long any learning gains persist over
time.
■ The adaptive nature of technology-supported personalised learning
to ‘teach at the right level’ is key as it enables students to learn at
their own pace and according to their current proficiency. It can
deliver individually customised resources and activities for all students
regardless of the extent of heterogeneity in learning levels in the class.
Importantly, these adaptive features appear to make a difference to
learning, while technology with fewer personalised affordances does not
seem to positively impact learning in the same way. Of particular
significance in the context of mass school shutdowns, given that many
learners are likely to require additional support upon returning to

EdTech Hub
school, is that technology-supported personalised learning may help

most in closing educational gaps for marginalised learners.
■ Technology-supported personalised learning may be most beneficial
in closing educational gaps for lower-attaining students, potentially
including those returning to school after an absence. Much of the
evidence points to it being an effective avenue for delivering remedial
instruction. Questions remain, however, about whether the approach is
as effective for higher-attaining learners. Moreover, ‘personalised
learning’ does not necessarily mean ‘individualised learning’; it can
include group-level adaptation and some research points to the
beneficial nature of student collaboration in this context (as in many
others). Indeed, technology-supported personalised learning can also
open up a range of other important pedagogical and motivational
affordances (e.g. relating to feedback and the scaffolding of learning).
■ Any introduction of personalised learning technology should not be
interpreted as decreasing the importance of the teacher, but rather
enhancing it. Technology-supported personalised learning approaches
appear to have promise in helping to teach or remediate deficiencies in
student understanding as well as in potentially helping teachers
improve their subject and conceptual knowledge. This is particularly
important to note when considering low-resource contexts where
teaching quality may be low. Such approaches have potential to
function as a medium for continuous learning beyond classroom
instruction.
■ Implications for cost and infrastructure are unclear, but using
existing hardware solutions is likely to help to reduce costs and
increase access. While significantly more research is needed into the
costs associated with technology-supported personalised learning, a
number of studies report that such an approach need not necessarily be
prohibitively expensive. Whether the ‘added value’ of
technology-supported approaches is sufficient to merit the additional
expenditure remains to be determined. Using existing hardware
solutions (e.g. mobile devices or desktop computers in those areas
where these are readily available) can clearly help to reduce associated
costs and enable greater numbers of students to access personalised
learning through technology. In settings without sufficient
infrastructure, it is likely that implementation costs will be high.
Further robust quantitative, qualitative and/or secondary research is needed
to investigate the various complex and nuanced factors associated with
technology-supported personalised learning presented in the RER. In addition
EdTech Hub
to addressing questions relating to cost effectiveness, a particularly important

consideration for future research is to understand which approach to the use
of technology in personalising student learning will have the greatest impact
on learning outcomes (including how this varies according to countries,
culture and context). Integrated approaches to design, research and
development (e.g. design-based research), that feature close collaboration
with practitioners and learners as an integral part of the research process in
order to solve ‘real-world’ educational problems, may be particularly fruitful.
Such approaches can help to engender ‘buy in’ and avoid situations where
personalisation technologies developed in higher-income countries are
‘parachuted’ into LMICs (Zualkernan, 2016). Other avenues of research could
include: rigorous comparison of EdTech personalised adaptive learning and
non-EdTech personalised learning approaches; greater consideration of
differences in the use of personalised technologies in urban and rural settings;
nuanced investigations into learning outcomes (e.g. broken down by gender
and level of achievement over time); how the role of teacher may change in
the presence of personalised technology; and consideration of the
motivational affordances of technology-supported personalised learning from
both teacher and learner perspectives (particularly in contexts where a
teacher may not be physically present with students).
One important area noticeably absent from the analysis relates to the ethics of
technology-supported personalised learning. There are, of course, many
assumptions that underpin personalised technologies that warrant scrutiny.
This includes whether there is a risk of perpetuating a narrow idea of what it
means to ‘succeed’ academically (e.g. due to an overt focus on ‘traditional’
learning outcomes such as test scores); whether personalised learning risks
promoting individualistic learning aspirations; whether valuing more ‘closed’
tasks over ‘open’ ones may be to the detriment of deeper learning
experiences; and in what ways personalised data collection impinges upon
students’ privacy.
It is also worth noting how the majority of research to date has been
undertaken in a school context. Many of the most disadvantaged learners will
not have regular access to schooling in the traditional sense (much like in the
present situation given the Covid-19 pandemic). Future technology-supported
personalised learning initiatives should potentially look, therefore, to
specifically target such learners, in particular lower-attaining students who are
left behind in ‘business-as-usual’ instruction (Muralidharan et al., 2019).


EdTech Hub


EdTech Hub
5. Annex A: Bibliography
N.b. Those items astericked (*) represent those included in the final set of 24
studies.
*Andallaza, T. C. S., Rodrigo, M. M. T., Lagud, M. C. V., Jimenez, R. J. M., &

Sugay, J. O. (2012). M
odeling the Affective States of Students Using an
Intelligent Tutoring System for Algebra. Proceedings of The Third
International Workshop on Empathic Computing (IWEC). p. 4.
*Araya, R., & Van der Molen, J. (2013). Impact of a blended ICT adoption
model on Chilean vulnerable schools correlates with amount of on online
practice. In: Proceedings of the Workshops at the 16th International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education AIED. Memphis, USA,
9–13 July 2013
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1009/aied2013ws_volume6.pdf#page=43
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a

methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 8(1), 19–32
Azevedo, J. P., Wagner De; Hasan, A., Goldemberg, D., Iqbal, S. A., Geven, K.
M. (2020). S
imulating the Potential Impacts of COVID-19 School Closures
on Schooling and Learning Outcomes : A Set of Global Estimates
(English). Policy Research working paper; no. WPS 9284; COVID-19
(Coronavirus). Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/329961592483383689/Simula
ting-the-Potential-Impacts-of-COVID-19-School-Closures-on-Schooling-a
nd-Learning-Outcomes-A-Set-of-Global-Estimates
*Bai, Y., Tang, B., Wang, B., Auden, E., & Mandell, B. (2018). Impact of Online
Computer Assisted Learning on Education: Evidence from a Randomized
Controlled Trial in China. REAP Working Paper, 51.
*Banerjee A. V., Cole S., Duflo E. & Linden L. (2007). Remedying Education:
Evidence from Two Randomized Experiments in India. T he Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 1 22(3): 1235–1264,
https://doi-org.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1235
Beetham, H. (2005). “Personalisation in the curriculum: A view from

learning theory”. In S. de Freitas, S. & C. Yapp (eds.) P
ersonalizing learning
in the 21st century, pp. 17–24. Network Educational Press.
*Brunskill, E., Garg, S., Tseng, C., Pal, J., & Findlater, L. (2010). Evaluating an
Adaptive Multi-User Educational Tool for Low-Resource Environments.
Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Information
and Communication Technologies and Development.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/Web/People/ebrun/ictd_brunskill2
010.pdf
EdTech Hub
*Buchel, K., Jakob, M., Kuhnhanss, C., Steﬀen, D., & Brunetti, A. (2020). The
Relative Effectiveness of Teachers and Learning Software. Evidence from
a Field Experiment in El Salvador. Working Paper No. 2006, Department
of Economics, University of Bern. URL: w ww.vwi.unibe.ch (last access:
10.03.2020).
*Casas, I., Imbrogno, J., Ochoa, S. F., & Vergara, A. (2014). Adapting a
cognitive tutoring strategy for mathematics in Latin America. In Fifth
International Workshop on Culturally-Aware Tutoring Systems (CATS2014)
(p. 27).
*Carrillo, P. E., Onofa, M., & Ponce, J. (2011). Information Technology and
Student Achievement: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in
Ecuador. S SRN Electronic Journal. h
ttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1818756
Cuban, L. (2018). A Continuum of Personalized Learning (Second Draft).

https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2018/09/27/second-draft-a-continuum-
of-personalized-learning/
Education from disruption to recovery (nd). UNESCO. Retrieved from

https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
Escueta, M., Quan, V., Nickow, A. J., & Oreopoulos, P. (2017). E

ducation
technology: An evidence-based review. National Bureau of Economic
Research.
FitzGerald, E., Jones, A., Kucirkova, N., & Scanlon, E. (2018). A literature
synthesis of personalised technology-enhanced learning: What works
and why. Research in Learning Technology, 26.
https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2095
Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Kamel, C., King, V., Nussbaumer-Streit, B.,
Stevens, A., Hamel, C., & Affengruber, L. (2020). Cochrane Rapid Reviews:
Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group.
Cochrane.
*Gambari, I. A., Gbodi, B. E., Olakanmi, E. U., & Abalaka, E. N. (2016a).

Promoting Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation among Chemistry Students
using Computer-Assisted Instruction. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 7( 1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10/ggv6gc
*Gambari, A. I., Shittu, A. T., Falode, O. C., & Adegunna, A. D. (2016b). Effects
of computer-self interactive package (CSIP) on students’ performance,
achievement level and attitude toward mathematics at secondary school
in Nigeria. Al-hikma Journal of Education, 3 (1), 14.
*Gambrari, I. A., Yusuf, M. O., & Thomas, D. A. (2015). Effects of

Computer-Assisted STAD, LTM and ICI Cooperative Learning Strategies
on Nigerian Secondary School Students’ Achievement, Gender and
Motivation in Physics. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(19), 16–28.

EdTech Hub
Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the

quality and relevance of evidence. Research papers in education, 2
2(2),
213-228.
Gro, J. S. (2017). The State of the Field & Future Directions (p. 47).
www.curriculumredesign.org
Holmes, W., Anastopoulou, S., Schaumburg, H., & Mavrikis, M. (2018).

Technology-enhanced Personalised Learning: Untangling the Evidence
[Other]. Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH.
http://www.studie-personalisiertes-lernen.de/en/
*Ige, O. A. (2019). Impact of Computer-Assisted Instructional Strategy on

Schoolchildren’s Social Skills. Journal of Social Studies Education
Research, 10(4), 490–505.
*Ito H., Kasia K. & Nakamuro M. (2019). "Does Computer-aided Instruction

Improve Children's Cognitive and Non-cognitive Skills?: Evidence from
Cambodia." Discussion papers 19040, Research Institute of Economy,
Trade and Industry (RIETI).
https://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/dpaper/19040.html
Kishore, D., & Shah, D. (2019). Using technology to facilitate educational

attainment: Reviewing the past and looking to the future. Pathways for
Prosperity Commission Background Paper Series, No. 23, p. 47.
*Kumar, A., & Mehra, A. (2018). Remedying Education with Personalized

Homework: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment in India .
Social Science Research Network (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2756059).
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2756059
*Lai, F., Luo, R., Zhang, L., Huang, X., & Rozelle, S. (2015). Does
computer-assisted learning improve learning outcomes? Evidence from a
randomized experiment in migrant schools in Beijing. Economics of
Education Review, 47, 34–48. h
ttps://doi.org/10/f7m2vj
*Lai, F., Zhang, L., Hu, X., Qu, Q., Shi, Y., Qiao, Y., Boswell, M., & Rozelle, S.
(2013). Computer assisted learning as extracurricular tutor? Evidence from
a randomised experiment in rural boarding schools in Shaanxi. J ournal of
Development Effectiveness, 5( 2), 208–231. https://doi.org/10/ggdcnf
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies:

Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5 ( 1), 69.
*Linden, L. L. (2008). Complement or Substitute? The Effect of Technology

on Student Achievement in India. JPAL Working Paper
*Ma, Y., Fairlie, R., Loyalka, P., & Rozelle, S. (2020). Isolating the “Tech” from
EdTech: Experimental Evidence on Computer Assisted Learning in China
National Bureau of Economic Research (No. w26953; p. w26953).
https://doi.org/10.3386/w26953
EdTech Hub
*Mo, D., Swinnen, J., Zhang, L., Yi, H., Qu, Q., Boswell, M., & Rozelle, S. (2013).
Can One-to-One Computing Narrow the Digital Divide and the
Educational Gap in China? The Case of Beijing Migrant Schools. W orld
Development, 4
6, 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.12.019
*Mo, D., Zhang, L., Luo, R., Qu, Q., Huang, W., Wang, J., Qiao, Y., Boswell, M.,
& Rozelle, S. (2014). Integrating computer-assisted learning into a regular
curriculum: Evidence from a randomised experiment in rural schools in
Shaanxi. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 6 (3), 300–323.
https://doi.org/10/gf5f39
*Muralidharan, K., Singh A. & Ganimian A. J. (2019). "Disrupting Education?

Experimental Evidence on Technology-Aided Instruction in India."
American Economic Review, 109(4): 1426–60. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20171112
*Mutahi, J., Bent, O., Kinai, A., Weldemariam, K., Sengupta, B., & Contractor,
D. (2015). Seamless blended learning using the Cognitive Learning
Companion: A systemic view. IBM Journal of Research and Development,
59(6), 8:1-8:13. h
ttps://doi.org/10/ggxwf9
*Mutahi, J., Kinai, A., Bore, N., Diriye, A., & Weldemariam, K. (2017). Studying
engagement and performance with learning technology in an African
classroom. Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics
& Knowledge Conference, 148–152. https://doi.org/10/ggvw56
No evidence to back the idea of learning styles (2017, March). T

he
Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/12/no-evidence-to-bac
k-idea-of-learning-styles (Accessed 26/06/20)
Office of Educational Technology. (2017). R

eimagining the Role of Technology
in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. U.S.
Department of Education. http://tech.ed.gov
*Ogan, A., Walker, E., Baker, R. S. J. D., Rebolledo Mendez, G., Jimenez
Castro, M., Laurentino, T., & de Carvalho, A. (2012). Collaboration in
cognitive tutor use in latin America: Field study and design
recommendations. P roceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 1381–1390.
Perera, M.; Aboal, D. (2017a). Evaluación del impacto de la plataforma

adaptativa de
matemática en los resultados de los aprendizajes. Centro de
Investigaciones
Económicas, Montevideo.

Perera, M.; Aboal, D. (2017b). Diferencias por género y contexto
socioeconómico del

EdTech Hub
impacto de la Plataforma Adaptativa de Matemática 1 - PDF Descargar

libre.
entro de Investigaciones Económicas, Montevideo.

Ryan R. (2013). C ochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group.

‘Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group :data synthesis
and analysis’. h
ttp://cccrg.cochrane.org
Stott, A., & Case, J. M. (2014). Electronic Tutoring as a Tool for Promoting
Conceptual Change: A Case Study of In-service Science Teacher
Workshops. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 1 8(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10/ggvw59
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of
qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research
Methodology, 8 (1), 45.
UNESCO (2019). Education from disruption to recover. Retrieved from

https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
Zaulkerman, I., Arroyo, I., & Woolf, B. (2013). T

owards Localization of
Automated Tutors for Developing Countries. AIED Workshops.
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1009/aied2013ws_volume6.pdf#page=6
Zualkernan, I. A. (2016). Personalized Learning for the Developing World.

In T
he Future of Ubiquitous Learning (pp. 241–258). Springer.


EdTech Hub
6. Annex B: Search terms

Records After
Source Search terms returned screening
Google Scholar (GS) “Personalised Adaptive Learning” 132 2

GS "Personalized Adaptive Learning" 619 3
“Personalised
GS technology-enhanced learning” 34 4
“Personalized
GS technology-enhanced learning” 76 12
“Technology-enhanced
GS personalised learning” 18 6
“Technology-enhanced
GS personalized learning” 30 18
GS “Personalised TEL” 13 5
GS “Personalized TEL” 11 3
“Personalised learning
GS environment” 593 20
“Personalized learning
GS environment” 3490 5
GS “Teaching at the right level” 266 5
"Combined Activities for
GS Maximized Learning" 15 1
... (“Edtech” OR “Education
technology” OR “digital learning”
OR "eLearning" OR school) AND
("africa" OR “LMIC" OR "developing
world” OR “developing country*”
OR “ICT4D” OR “global south”)
GS “Personalised education” AND 160 6
GS “Personalized education” AND 626 6
GS “Personalised learning” AND 1810 6
GS “Personalized learning” AND 3660 5
GS “adaptive learning” AND 6910 1
GS “adapting learning” AND 396 5
GS “Differentiated learning” AND ) 1310 8
“Computer-assisted instruction”
GS AND 6160 27
GS “Computer-assisted learning” AND 8130 10
GS “Computer-aided learning” AND 1530 3

EdTech Hub
GS “Intelligent tutoring system” AND 765 5

“Exploratory learning
GS environments” AND 33 0
“Adaptive Educational
GS Hypermedia” AND 112 2
GS “Adaptive hypermedia” AND 414 1
“Personalised Adaptive Learning”
GS AND 7 3
"Personalized Adaptive Learning"
GS AND 43 3
SPUD (TE or (TT and PP)) Teaching at the Right Level 2 2
SPUD (TE or (TT and PP)) TARL 43 0
SPUD (TE or (TT and PP)) personalised 534 4
SPUD (GC.HM or GR or
GD) personalized 255 2
GD) adaptive learning 42 3
GD) intelligent tutoring system 76 8
GD) computer assisted learning 20 4
TOTAL 38,335 198

7. Annex C: Data description spreadsheet

Available here


Technology-Supported Personalised Learning - A Rapid Evidence Review - Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning - A Rapid Evidence Review - Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology-Supported

Date July 2020

Author Louis Major

About this document

Licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

You — dear readers — are free to share (copy and

Available at https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/A2II5ZV7

Notes EdTech Hub is supported by UK aid and the World

Rapid Evidence Reviews

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 3

Abbreviations and acronyms

CTS Cognitive Tutoring Systems

EdTech Educational Technology

ICT Information and Communications Technology

ITS Intelligent Tutoring Systems

LMICs Low- and middle-income countries

RCT Randomised Controlled Trial

RER Rapid Evidence Review

TaRL Teaching at the Right Level

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 4

although there are examples of research involving the development of

Any introduction of personalised learning technology should not be

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 7

Research on technology’s role in enabling learning that is better suited to the

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 8

1.5. Research questions

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 9

RQ1.​ How has technology-supported personalised learning been

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 10

1.5.2. Structure of the RER

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 11

2.1. Scoping review

2.2. Literature search and eligibility criteria

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 13

Table 1:​ Eligibility criteria for literature searches and screening.

Criterion type Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Population Involving elementary Involving learners in

Intervention Falling under the broad Studies focusing on access

Outcomes Reporting effects on Focusing on the

Study design Describing primary Reviews and

Date Published 2006–2020

After full-text screening according to the eligibility criteria, 41 relevant studies

relevant research was not missed. This ‘backward snowballing’ strategy

on the eventual findings. Due to the constraints of the RER timeframe,

2.4. Theme identification

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 16

Improving access to education and adapting to the diverse needs of

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 17

Where has research been undertaken?

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 18

learning outcomes) and qualitative data (teacher interviews) to assess the

Which learners have been involved in the researched

What approaches to technology-supported

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 19

The studies which reported using either computer-assisted learning (n=9),

however, is the explicit alignment of the software content to the local

interaction (or responsive engagement) between the technology and the

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 21

students. Students can therefore use such technology independently or with

Technology-Supported Personalised Learning: A Rapid Evidence Review 22

Table 2. Summarising reported technology-supported personalised learning

Fewer Medium Greater

RQ1. How has technology-supported personalised learning been

Table 1: Eligibility criteria for literature searches and screening.

Table 3. Summarising reported impact on students’ learning (by research method)

outcomes outcomes10 outcomes

Of the studies featuring f ewer personalisation affordances (Table 2, n=8), five

Cuban, L. (2018). A Continuum of Personalized Learning (Second Draft).

Kishore, D., & Shah, D. (2019). Using technology to facilitate educational

*Kumar, A., & Mehra, A. (2018). Remedying Education with Personalized

*Linden, L. L. (2008). Complement or Substitute? The Effect of Technology

Ryan R. (2013). C ochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group.